Old vs. new cylinder release thumbpieces

Do you like the old or the new thumbpiece?

  • Yeah! The old one suited me just fine and it worked. Why change?

    Votes: 69 82.1%

  • I just love the streamlined look of the new one - even if it doesn't work as well!

    Votes: 3 3.6%

  • I don't really give a flying fig!

    Votes: 12 14.3%
  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
PALADIN85020

PALADIN85020

US Veteran
Gold Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
10,358
Reaction score
51,882
Location
Arizona
OK, call me a curmudgeon (and I know I am) for resisting changes on Smith & Wesson revolvers. But I've got to get this off my chest. Take a look at most of the modern Smiths. They are equipped with this cockamaimy thumbpiece that's shaped like it's designed to help your thumb slip off of it. You could push against the older style with some confidence. So not only does the newer thumbpiece look goofy, it's not very efficient. Look at the difference here:

First, the old style:

thumbpiece1.jpg


Now, the newer style:

thumbpiece2.jpg


Now some will say that the newer one was designed that way so that speedloaders could clear it better. I say bull. I never had a problem with the older ones, and any clearance problem was usually the fault of the stocks, not the thumbpiece.

I don't know, maybe Smith saved $.00005 per thumbpiece by eliminating some metal, called it an improvement and boosted their prices accordingly.

What do you think?

John
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
When I first fired my 29-2 with the original grips back in the mid 80's, the thumb piece drew blood and I didn't like it.

Then I put some Hogues on the 29 and the thumb piece didn't engrave my thumb anymore and I could see the value of the design.

The old design works for me aesthetically and functionally.
 
Well, John, it's interesting that you posted this. I've been considering a nearly identical post for some time.

Let me say first of all that I read nearly all your threads and appreciate what you have to say, along with the great pictures you have.

This time my opinion differs markedly from yours. I prefer the newer thumbpiece for two reasons: 1)I actually believe that my thumb is able to work it better/more easily. It seems to protrude further from the frame, or angles away from the frame more sharply, or something. Whatever the explanation, the thing just moves faster/easier for me; and 2)I believe it looks better, due to the contour of the top right portion which parallels the contour of the frame as it descends from the top strap to the top of the grip frame. I've noticed on K-frames how the older design almost protrudes beyond the contour of the frame, and it just looks bad to me. On N-frames this isn't an issue.

Andy
 
I think it's all cosmetic.

Since revolvers are slower to use than automatics, they had to do something to make them look faster. Voila. The streamlined thumb latch. You can tell, just by looking at that latch, that speed in using the gun is at least doubled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH4
IMHO, it's like racing stripes on a car. It doesn't make the car go any faster but it looks cool and it's something that you can brag about. I can do without the new style thumbpiece ... and without the lock too.

Charlie
 
When the new design came out I didn't like it as it "didn't look right". However, after using it, I found it worked a lot better for me. So, therefore, I no long care what a thumb latch looks like, I care how it works for me.
 
I think the old standard one works with less effort and slippage. I like its looks better, too. This also applies to the same style on J-frames, as the old flat versions weren't as efficient.

But Ruger has a really good idea with their cylinder release, which won't bite your thumb on recoil!
 
Last edited:
John,

I suspect that the prime mover in the change was simply to offer something that looked new. Some things (such as the internal lock and the cross bolt safety on lever actions) are driven by today's legal requirements but some are simply someone's image of what looks better (different) to them.

You and I are just wed to the old way that things looked. I would guess that you also find a slightly tapered round barrel more attractive than a slab sided one; that you appreciate an under lug with a gracefully curved end rather than one that abruptly heads south at a 45 degree angle, etc. Someone in the S&W design dept. just grew up with a different sense of aesthetics than we.:(

Bob (also a Curmudgeon!)

Snapping Twig said:
When I first fired my 29-2 with the original grips back in the mid 80's, the thumb piece drew blood and I didn't like it.
Click to expand...

Twig, your problem is that you were holding the 29 in the wrong hand! ;)
B
 
Last edited:
bettis1 said:
John,

I suspect that the prime mover in the change was simply to offer something that looked new. Some things (such as the internal lock and the cross bolt safety on lever actions) are driven by today's legal requirements but some are simply someone's image of what looks better (different) to them.

You and I are just wed to the old way that things looked. I would guess that you also find a slightly tapered round barrel more attractive than a slab sided one; that you appreciate an under lug with a gracefully curved end rather than one that abruptly heads south at a 45 degree angle, etc. Someone in the S&W design dept. just grew up with a different sense of aesthetics than we.:(

Bob (also a Curmudgeon!)
Click to expand...

You, my friend, as am I, are an aesthete. Here's to us and those like us; damned fewer every day. :cool:

John
 
I, too, like them old and functional. If it aint broke………………..
 
This may be a minor detail to some but it's an excellent thread John.

One's opinion has a lot to do with how much of a traditionalist one is and how important aesthetics are to them. I like Smiths for their classic looks. In an effort to sell more guns and/or modernize them, new Smiths have lost their appeal to me. Not to say I don't have one or two only because the caliber, 500 Mag for example, isn't available in an old Smith. But I make changes as I see fit, and the new thumbpiece is the 1st to go.
orig.jpg


My 1st preference is the double hourglass pre war style (that were reproduced on the 'Classics' line) and I have made use of those as well as original pre wars on newer guns. And tapered barrels too as bettis1 mentioned.
orig.jpg


I even put the pre war cylinder hold open device on post war guns. The panache of pre war blued guns has great appeal for me.
 
PALADIN85020 said:
OK, call me a curmudgeon (and I know I am) for resisting changes on Smith & Wesson revolvers. But I've got to get this off my chest. Take a look at most of the modern Smiths. They are equipped with this cockamaimy thumbpiece that's shaped like it's designed to help your thumb slip off of it. You could push against the older style with some confidence. So not only does the newer thumbpiece look goofy, it's not very efficient. Look at the difference here:

First, the old style:

thumbpiece1.jpg


Now, the newer style:

thumbpiece2.jpg


Now some will say that the newer one was designed that way so that speedloaders could clear it better. I say bull. I never had a problem with the older ones, and any clearance problem was usually the fault of the stocks, not the thumbpiece.

I don't know, maybe Smith saved $.00005 per thumbpiece by eliminating some metal, called it an improvement and boosted their prices accordingly.

What do you think?

John
Click to expand...

I think your right. Although I still like Colts idea best.
 
I like the old style best.

Not that you or anyone else asked but I hate the flat latch thumbpiece on the J-frames. Glad I got that off my chest:D

JMHO
 
I had an interesting experience using both the old and new style latches on my 642. First, I don't switch hands to reload. The gun stays in my right hand while my left thumb works the latch (I use Michael deBethencourt's reload method).

The 642 came with the new style latch and I never had any issues with it. deBethencourt says that with his reloading method the old style latch works better, so I thought I'd give it a try. Besides, I like the look of the old style latch better. After doing a lot of dry-fire reloading drills, I found that I would occasionally fail to fully push the old style latch far enough to release the cylinder. This never happened with the new style latch. So I switched back to the new style latch. Is this something that could be corrected with more practice? Probably, and I may revisit the old latch in the future. But for now I'll stick with the new latch since I've never had a problem with it.

I will add that my 65 has the old style latch and I've never had any issues with it, including interference with speedloaders. I've never tried the new latch style on a K-frame so I can't make a comparison.
 
I put the old style latch on both my 317s. Like them a lot better than the new latch. Unfortunately, the lock on one of my 317s can still be activated with the new latch in place.
 
I'm definitely with the old school.... and what's with the "Great Wall of China" running up the left side of the frame just behind the cylinder? Totally ugly.
 
I like the old one. Nothing against the new one but they tend to grow these holes right above 'em...
 
I like the old ones, but on one, a Mod 940, with hot factory ammo it will bite my thumb. About 10 seconds with an 800 grit belt on my belt sander rounded and polished it just enough to solve the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lihpster
New vs. Old
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
mtgianni
M
R
Welding quality new and old
2
Replies
25
Views
985
dockmurgw
D
dben002
New/old phone scam on the uprise.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Mr. Vito
M
D
iPhone vs computer
Replies
4
Views
136
bbqsauce
bbqsauce
Peak53
Border Collie vs. Racoon
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
CAJUNLAWYER
CAJUNLAWYER

Latest posts

Back
Top